Fresh Tracks Weekly - Conflicted Wildlife Trustees (Commissioners)

[abqbw]

With that lens, I’d say the private land “beneficiaries” are grossly over compensated in tags for a public resource.
Edit to add- at the expense of the public in terms of extracting a resource for a private financial gain.

Absolutely correct. In the example Randy used as an example of massive conflict of interest with the chair of the NM Game Commission being Hunting Director for a private landowner that was integral to the attempt to block state constitutionally guaranteed access to stream Randy didn’t even mention another conflict for the chair of our commission. The landowner the chair directs hunts for received private landowner elk permits through New Mexicos EPLUS elk privatization scheme. The largest such scheme in the U.S.

 

[Ben Lamb]

With that lens, I’d say the private land “beneficiaries” are grossly over compensated in tags for a public resource.
Edit to add- at the expense of the public in terms of extracting a resource for a private financial gain.

Counter point: If I'm a beneficiary of a trust, and I am putting more resources into it, do I not deserve some increased share as my input is outsized relative to the input of someone who only puts in a minimal amount?

 

[Rie Bread]

Counter point: If I'm a beneficiary of a trust, and I am putting more resources into it, do I not deserve some increased share as my input is outsized relative to the input of someone who only puts in a minimal amount?

What resources would that be? An outfitter program? Land?

 

[Ben Lamb]

What resources would that be? An outfitter program? Land?

Not specific to outfitters, but your statement was:

With that lens, I’d say the private land “beneficiaries” are grossly over compensated in tags for a public resource.

There are significant resources provided by private landowners for wildlife. When westward expansion happened, settlers chose the most productive land to start their farming and ranching operations. That land has high wildlife value, and because it's private and managed for agriculture, wildlife over-use can be a significant issue relative to the bottom line in an industry that has very tight profit margins as it is. I know of several operations across states that lose upwards of $50 - 100,000 every year due to loss of crops & grazing ground.

Wildlife explicitly exists as a condition of the land. However, courts have ruled that private landowners do have the right to demand help when wildlife becomes problematic. I think most states recognize the contribution made by private landowners (whether they outfit or not is immaterial to this discussion) and offer programs that pay for the privilege for access, pay for game damage or provide licenses as a type of payment.

Landowners & Private land provide significant conservation uplift. They contribute heavily towards the abundance of wildlife that we all enjoy. I think that deserves a little cheddar here and there in recognition.

 

[fwagner]

Anyone else see the irony of a social media platform, that profits off of viewership and leading to overcrowding, putting out a post titled "Benefits oneself, at the expense of others"....

 

[Big Fin]

Counter point: If I'm a beneficiary of a trust, and I am putting more resources into it, do I not deserve some increased share as my input is outsized relative to the input of someone who only puts in a minimal amount?

The courts would say, "No." The courts would bifurcate the standing of said person into two different standings in their relationship with the Trust/Trustee - 1) Beneficiary by mere fact of being a citizen, and 2) Stakeholder, by the fact that the person is providing value to the Trust that the Trustee must consider in their management of the Trust.

There's little argument about the equal standing of all beneficiaries. If you're a citizen, hunter or not, you are a Beneficiary with equal standing to all other Beneficiaries. That's the easy one for Trustees to navigate, or it should be the easy one.

The second standing, a Stakeholder, is the standing most likely to create some questionable topics if things do get off the rails. A Stakeholder, who can also be a Beneficiary, is someone the Trustee should transact with based on what value the Stakeholder brings to the Trust.

Very often this Stakeholder is a landowner who provides habitat for wildlife. And among those landowners there are two categories, which should not cloud how the Trustee interacts with them; 1) resident landowners who are both Stakeholders and Beneficiaries, and 2) non-resident landowners are only Stakeholders.

The point of focus for a Trustee is how a Trustee should operate with Stakeholders, a group that has no standing in Trust law or concepts, other than what value they can provide the Trust/Trustee with what assets the Stakeholder brings to the table. When doing transactions with the Trust, the Trustee should view this person as any other vendor or customer, even if they are a Beneficiary in other scenarios. If they view it that way, the same as they would if entering into a contract with a vendor or customer, odds are they will make a decision that is best for the Trust.

I've found this example illustrates it best, as to how a Trustee should interact with a Stakeholder.

Example 1 - A resident landowner comes to the Trustee with a great opportunity. He owns 500,000 acres of prime elk habitat. He is willing to let 20 residents hunt bull elk and 50 residents hunt cow elk, if he could get one non-transferable bull tag for the limited entry unit his land is located in. Even though the landowner is a resident and therefore a Beneficiary and a Stakeholder, the Trustee must look at this person in their standing as a Stakeholder, not a Beneficiary.

Most would say the Trustee is required to enter into that transaction with the landowner. Immense value comes to the Trust (access for 70 elk hunters) for very little cost to the Trust (one bull tag). The landowners is making this offer as a Stakeholder who is bringing value to the Trust beyond what he/she is asking from the Trust. That makes it an easier decision for the Trustee.

Example 2 - Some might say this scenario already exists in some states. A neighboring resident landowner (both a Beneficiary and a Stakeholder) comes to the Trustee with a proposal. They own 500,000 acres of prime elk habitat. He wants 20 transferable bull elk tags he can sell, with his hunters having any season dates they want from September 1-October 15. In exchange, he is willing to open his ranch to 1 public bull elk hunter who can come in after his hunters, so after October 15. He will also let in 5 cow elk hunters come in November. He is not willing to open his ranch to any other hunting for any other reason.

Most would question if this is a good transaction for the Trust and its Beneficiaries. The landowner might be a Beneficiary, but in this scenario, the Trustee has to look at the landowner as a Stakeholder. Is the Stakeholder offering value to the Trust that is equal to, or greater than, the value they are asking from the Trust. If the Trustee measures those values and concludes it is equal or greater value, then they should enter into the transaction. If they can't measure that value, or it is measured and is less value, then they shouldn't.


I used the landowner scenario, as landowners provide a great amount of habitat to the Trust asset (wildlife) and thus Trustees have to consider that in properly managing Trust assets. That scenario is the hardest one to navigate, given the balancing and measuring of what value the landowner is providing to the Trust assets (wildlife), versus what is given to the landowner which comes at the expense of opportunity that could be provided to the other Beneficiaries. My examples make it easy to see differences that are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Most real life examples fall in between my scenarios and make it harder to value the net benefit/cost to the Trust.

When we get to outfitter pools, things get a lot harder to justify for the Trustees. Or when a state gives away dozens of Commissioners tags, many to organizations lacking connection to the wildlife (Trust asset). Or when states give away hundreds of tags to keep a couple non-profit groups solvent. Or when (insert any of the controversial programs here).

States have variations of these types of deals. When Trustees make the best decisions for the Trust and the Beneficiaries, it is when they do a good job of distinguishing the difference between Beneficiaries and Stakeholders. By doing so, it gets easier to see what the net benefit is to the Trust/Trustees.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The courts would say, "No." The courts would bifurcate the standing of said person into two different standings in their relationship with the Trust/Trustee - 1) Beneficiary by mere fact of being a citizen, and 2) Stakeholder, by the fact that the person is providing value to the Trust that the Trustee must consider in their management of the Trust.

There's little argument about the equal standing of all beneficiaries. If you're a citizen, hunter or not, you are a Beneficiary with equal standing to all other Beneficiaries. That's the easy one for Trustees to navigate, or it should be the easy one.

The second standing, a Stakeholder, is the standing most likely to create some questionable topics if things do get off the rails. A Stakeholder, who can also be a Beneficiary, is someone the Trustee should transact with based on what value the Stakeholder brings to the Trust.

Very often this Stakeholder is a landowner who provides habitat for wildlife. And among those landowners there are two categories, which should not cloud how the Trustee interacts with them; 1) resident landowners who are both Stakeholders and Beneficiaries, and 2) non-resident landowners are only Stakeholders.

The point of focus for a Trustee is how a Trustee should operate with Stakeholders, a group that has no standing in Trust law or concepts, other than what value they can provide the Trust/Trustee with what assets the Stakeholder brings to the table. When doing transactions with the Trust, the Trustee should view this person as any other vendor or customer, even if they are a Beneficiary in other scenarios. If they view it that way, the same as they would if entering into a contract with a vendor or customer, odds are they will make a decision that is best for the Trust.

I've found this example illustrates it best, as to how a Trustee should interact with a Stakeholder.

Example 1 - A resident landowner comes to the Trustee with a great opportunity. He owns 500,000 acres of prime elk habitat. He is willing to let 20 residents hunt bull elk and 50 residents hunt cow elk, if he could get one non-transferable bull tag for the limited entry unit his land is located in. Even though the landowner is a resident and therefore a Beneficiary and a Stakeholder, the Trustee must look at this person in their standing as a Stakeholder, not a Beneficiary.

Most would say the Trustee is required to enter into that transaction with the landowner. Immense value comes to the Trust (access for 70 elk hunters) for very little cost to the Trust (one bull tag). The landowners is making this offer as a Stakeholder who is bringing value to the Trust beyond what he/she is asking from the Trust. That makes it an easier decision for the Trustee.

Example 2 - Some might say this scenario already exists in some states. A neighboring resident landowner (both a Beneficiary and a Stakeholder) comes to the Trustee with a proposal. They own 500,000 acres of prime elk habitat. He wants 20 transferable bull elk tags he can sell, with his hunters having any season dates they want from September 1-October 15. In exchange, he is willing to open his ranch to 1 public bull elk hunter who can come in after his hunters, so after October 15. He will also let in 5 cow elk hunters come in November. He is not willing to open his ranch to any other hunting for any other reason.

Most would question if this is a good transaction for the Trust and its Beneficiaries. The landowner might be a Beneficiary, but in this scenario, the Trustee has to look at the landowner as a Stakeholder. Is the Stakeholder offering value to the Trust that is equal to, or greater than, the value they are asking from the Trust. If the Trustee measures those values and concludes it is equal or greater value, then they should enter into the transaction. If they can't measure that value, or it is measured and is less value, then they shouldn't.


I used the landowner scenario, as landowners provide a great amount of habitat to the Trust asset (wildlife) and thus Trustees have to consider that in properly managing Trust assets. That scenario is the hardest one to navigate, given the balancing and measuring of what value the landowner is providing to the Trust assets (wildlife), versus what is given to the landowner which comes at the expense of opportunity that could be provided to the other Beneficiaries. My examples make it easy to see differences that are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Most real life examples fall in between my scenarios and make it harder to value the net benefit/cost to the Trust.

When we get to outfitter pools, things get a lot harder to justify for the Trustees. Or when a state gives away dozens of Commissioners tags, many to organizations lacking connection to the wildlife (Trust asset). Or when states give away hundreds of tags to keep a couple non-profit groups solvent. Or when (insert any of the controversial programs here).

States have variations of these types of deals. When Trustees make the best decisions for the Trust and the Beneficiaries, it is when they do a good job of distinguishing the difference between Beneficiaries and Stakeholders. By doing so, it gets easier to see what the net benefit is to the Trust/Trustees.

So the discerning factor is what the trust receives in response to the request, rather than whether or not those stakeholders deserve the opportunity, or what they already provide the trust (habitat, security)?

 

[brocksw]

So the discerning factor is what the trust receives in response to the request, rather than whether or not those stakeholders deserve the opportunity, or what they already provide the trust (habitat, security)?

I don't mean this to be argumentative. I think your question, perhaps rhetorical, highlights that dynamic well.

However, as a thought experiment. I sometimes wonder what value landowners actually bring in the big picture. That sounds worse than I mean it, and let me try and explain.

A couple hundred years ago we had 30+ million bison roaming the great plains. They all existed before "landowners" first settled anywhere in this country. Pronghorn, bighorn sheep, large predators, I could say the exact same thing about. There were more of them before "landowners" were here. The 60's and 70's are considered the hay day of mule deer in this country. Long enough ago that the amount of native prairie and sagebrush was significantly higher. It is landowners who have converted much of those lost acres to mono crop agriculture. That modern agriculture movement has perhaps led to an increase in whitetail populations, and perhaps even elk. But there are many other species that have seen significant declines at the hands of modern ag/development through broad habitat destruction.

My point is, there is this idea that without landowners, we wouldn't have the wildlife we do. That it is all on their shoulders. Yet, history tells us that we were rich with wildlife before any landowners were here. I don't mean this as a critique of landowners, but I do think they have a self-inflated sense of importance to how this all works and they try to leverage that in these discussions. They have positioned themselves (purely by happenstance) in a position of importance, just through using the same landscapes that the wildlife do. And there is some level of societal acceptance in working with landowners to make deals, and to do things that are mutually beneficial. I just wonder if we are letting landowners push us too far towards the European model because we have been sold this idea that it all relies on them.

Certainly, the current reality is what it is and we are much better off working with them as much as we can to find mutually beneficial paths forward. So, I'm not saying we should stick our nose up at them and take our ball and go home.

Just a couple pennies that rattle around in my thick skull from time to time...

 

[Nameless Range]

So the discerning factor is what the trust receives in response to the request, rather than whether or not those stakeholders deserve the opportunity, or what they already provide the trust (habitat, security)?

As a beneficiary, I want my Trustees to always consider the former, and not the latter. I think allowing Trustees to determine deservedness is a recipe for abuse.

The easiest context for me to think about this is a Trust for which I am an elected (ha! ) Trustee - a fire department and district - the Trust serving "The Protection of the District and its Citizens". There are absolutely Stakeholders, some of which are Beneficiaries, who provide more to the Trust than others. One could even argue they "deserve" more Trust Assets than other beneficiaries/stakeholders. But what a mess to discern and defend. When the foundational criteria for deservedness is Beneficiary or Not, it makes the mission of a Trustee more clear and defendable.

I have yet to listen to this episode, but in the context of the Trust/Beneficiary relationship of wildlife management, I do wonder how non-hunters - who are the majority of beneficiaries - fit into the equation, and whether or not we will like the answer.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't mean this to be argumentative. I think your question, perhaps rhetorical, highlights that dynamic well.

However, as a thought experiment. I sometimes wonder what value landowners actually bring in the big picture. That sounds worse than I mean it, and let me try and explain.

A couple hundred years ago we had 30+ million bison roaming the great plains. They all existed before "landowners" first settled anywhere in this country. Pronghorn, bighorn sheep, large predators, I could say the exact same thing about. There were more of them before "landowners" were here. The 60's and 70's are considered the hay day of mule deer in this country. Long enough ago that the amount of native prairie and sagebrush was significantly higher. It is landowners who have converted much of those lost acres to mono crop agriculture. That modern agriculture movement has perhaps led to an increase in whitetail populations, and perhaps even elk. But there are many other species that have seen significant declines at the hands of modern ag/development through broad habitat destruction.

My point is, there is this idea that without landowners, we wouldn't have the wildlife we do. That it is all on their shoulders. Yet, history tells us that we were rich with wildlife before any landowners were here. I don't mean this as a critique of landowners, but I do think they have a self-inflated sense of importance to how this all works and they trying leverage that in these discussions. They have positioned themselves (purely by happenstance) in a position of importance, just through using the same landscapes that the wildlife do. And there is some level of societal acceptance in working with landowners to make deals, and to do things that are mutually beneficial. I just wonder, if we are letting landowners push us too far towards the European model because we have been sold this idea that it all relies on them.

Certainly, the current reality is what it is and we are much better off working with them as much as we can to find mutually beneficial paths forward. So, I'm not saying we should stick our nose up them and take our ball and go home.

Just a couple pennies that rattle around in my thick skull from time to time...

Yes & no.

Pre-settlement there is evidence of large swings in populations (bison especially), and evidence of human management (fire, etc) for abundance. But those conditions have not existed since the mid-1800's in the west, so tying management for 2024 to those precepts might be a recipe for disaster. Thanks to westward expansion, those most productive lands are now private property. Wildlife use those lands substantially.

The loss of large, intact pieces of functioning habitat for subdivisions, horse ghettos, etc is extremely detrimental to wildlife as a whole. We've created state and federal programs to help keep those large tracts of habitat intact and functioning.

 

[nrpate05]

You always stress the trustees should manage the resource for the benefit of the beneficiaries. I agree, but you often limit the beneficiaries to just hunters and not all citizens. Many citizens gain the most benefit by non-resident and outfitted/guided hunts. Why is there an outfitter set aside of tags in Idaho? Because idaho sees the value of the outfitting industry to the public who are beneficiaries of the resource.

I bet most business owners would be happy to have a certain amount of business set aside for them every year.

 

[Ben Lamb]

As a beneficiary, I want my Trustees to always consider the former, and not the latter. I think allowing Trustees to determine deservedness is a recipe for abuse.

The easiest context for me to think about this is a Trust for which I am an elected (ha! ) Trustee - a fire department and district - the Trust serving "The Protection of the District and its Citizens". There are absolutely Stakeholders, some of which are Beneficiaries, who provide more to the TrustAs f than others. One could even argue they "deserve" more Trust Assets than other beneficiaries/stakeholders. But what a mess to discern and defend. When the foundational criteria for deservedness is Beneficiary or Not, it makes the mission of a Trustee more clear and defendable.

I have yet to listen to this episode, but in the context of the Trust/Beneficiary relationship of wildlife management, I do wonder how non-hunters - who are the majority of beneficiaries - fit into the equation, and whether or not we will like the answer.

The episode is very much worth the listen.

The trustee has to do what is put into statute relative to the stakeholders and beneficiaries. As Randy points out, if the statutory mechanism for managing the trust says "X stakeholder is entitled to Y license" then they are simply enacting the requirements that the legislature has put on trustees. The decision around "deserves" is a statutory one, not an administrative one.

As for non-hunters, it's a very difficult issue. The common phrase about wildlife "ownership" is - Wildlife are owned by no one, and are managed for the benefit of all."

 

[Joseph Peterson]

That’s an exceedingly weak argument for removing the tags from the resident public domain. Once that is done, a non beneficiary is paid out of the trust. There is only one beneficiary. All residents equally. If a trustee pays out of a private trust to a non benificiary they most show that without any doubt that it was done for direct measurable benefit to or requirement for to the trust beneficiaries. Like attorney fees and accountants. The “trickle down” economic argument for outfitters and landowners receiving tags doesn’t come close to passing the public trust sniff test.

It does to me having been in the business for 35 years. The introduction of wolves to Idaho in 1995 helped reduce our elk herd by 85%. This reduction came in the areas where most outfitters operated. We went from a thriving small business community to one just hanging on. Grocery stores closed, motels shut down, cafes closed, gas stations closed, feed store took a hit and so on. Outfitters used summer business and bear hunts for cash flow but elk was where they kept their heads above water. Take away that stable $ and the whole community suffered. I see a direct benefit to the people of rural communities by having a stable outfitter business. 40% of the hunters in these units were non-resident and most were outfitted because the area is designated wilderness so most folks did not have the equipment or skills to get in there.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

I bet most business owners would be happy to have a certain amount of business set aside for them every year.

Because most of what I am referring to takes place on National Forest, and both the USFS and the state of Idaho see the value in having outfitters available to provide reliable service for the public to enjoy public land, we try to preserve the tradition of backcountry use. You take away the outfitter and much of the area I operated in had no use. When I started in the 80's, farmers and ranchers would elk hunt well back from the trail head. Those guys are mostly dead and for the last 15 years I have not seen a single hunter, camp or even heard a rifle shot back there.

 

[Joseph Peterson]

The courts would say, "No." The courts would bifurcate the standing of said person into two different standings in their relationship with the Trust/Trustee - 1) Beneficiary by mere fact of being a citizen, and 2) Stakeholder, by the fact that the person is providing value to the Trust that the Trustee must consider in their management of the Trust.

There's little argument about the equal standing of all beneficiaries. If you're a citizen, hunter or not, you are a Beneficiary with equal standing to all other Beneficiaries. That's the easy one for Trustees to navigate, or it should be the easy one.

The second standing, a Stakeholder, is the standing most likely to create some questionable topics if things do get off the rails. A Stakeholder, who can also be a Beneficiary, is someone the Trustee should transact with based on what value the Stakeholder brings to the Trust.

Very often this Stakeholder is a landowner who provides habitat for wildlife. And among those landowners there are two categories, which should not cloud how the Trustee interacts with them; 1) resident landowners who are both Stakeholders and Beneficiaries, and 2) non-resident landowners are only Stakeholders.

The point of focus for a Trustee is how a Trustee should operate with Stakeholders, a group that has no standing in Trust law or concepts, other than what value they can provide the Trust/Trustee with what assets the Stakeholder brings to the table. When doing transactions with the Trust, the Trustee should view this person as any other vendor or customer, even if they are a Beneficiary in other scenarios. If they view it that way, the same as they would if entering into a contract with a vendor or customer, odds are they will make a decision that is best for the Trust.

I've found this example illustrates it best, as to how a Trustee should interact with a Stakeholder.

Example 1 - A resident landowner comes to the Trustee with a great opportunity. He owns 500,000 acres of prime elk habitat. He is willing to let 20 residents hunt bull elk and 50 residents hunt cow elk, if he could get one non-transferable bull tag for the limited entry unit his land is located in. Even though the landowner is a resident and therefore a Beneficiary and a Stakeholder, the Trustee must look at this person in their standing as a Stakeholder, not a Beneficiary.

Most would say the Trustee is required to enter into that transaction with the landowner. Immense value comes to the Trust (access for 70 elk hunters) for very little cost to the Trust (one bull tag). The landowners is making this offer as a Stakeholder who is bringing value to the Trust beyond what he/she is asking from the Trust. That makes it an easier decision for the Trustee.

Example 2 - Some might say this scenario already exists in some states. A neighboring resident landowner (both a Beneficiary and a Stakeholder) comes to the Trustee with a proposal. They own 500,000 acres of prime elk habitat. He wants 20 transferable bull elk tags he can sell, with his hunters having any season dates they want from September 1-October 15. In exchange, he is willing to open his ranch to 1 public bull elk hunter who can come in after his hunters, so after October 15. He will also let in 5 cow elk hunters come in November. He is not willing to open his ranch to any other hunting for any other reason.

Most would question if this is a good transaction for the Trust and its Beneficiaries. The landowner might be a Beneficiary, but in this scenario, the Trustee has to look at the landowner as a Stakeholder. Is the Stakeholder offering value to the Trust that is equal to, or greater than, the value they are asking from the Trust. If the Trustee measures those values and concludes it is equal or greater value, then they should enter into the transaction. If they can't measure that value, or it is measured and is less value, then they shouldn't.


I used the landowner scenario, as landowners provide a great amount of habitat to the Trust asset (wildlife) and thus Trustees have to consider that in properly managing Trust assets. That scenario is the hardest one to navigate, given the balancing and measuring of what value the landowner is providing to the Trust assets (wildlife), versus what is given to the landowner which comes at the expense of opportunity that could be provided to the other Beneficiaries. My examples make it easy to see differences that are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Most real life examples fall in between my scenarios and make it harder to value the net benefit/cost to the Trust.

When we get to outfitter pools, things get a lot harder to justify for the Trustees. Or when a state gives away dozens of Commissioners tags, many to organizations lacking connection to the wildlife (Trust asset). Or when states give away hundreds of tags to keep a couple non-profit groups solvent. Or when (insert any of the controversial programs here).

States have variations of these types of deals. When Trustees make the best decisions for the Trust and the Beneficiaries, it is when they do a good job of distinguishing the difference between Beneficiaries and Stakeholders. By doing so, it gets easier to see what the net benefit is to the Trust/Trustees.

Example 3. Landowner doesn't get consideration for the elk he supports to the detriment of his business, closes his ranch to all hunting, all. I know several ranches in New Mexico that would have no hunting if it were not for the landowner voucher system. If the same number of tags were issued but large portions of private ground were not available, it would increase crowding and overall loss of quality hunting where you could hunt. Bad for the beneficiaries who hunt and the local community.

 

[SAJ-99]

Because most of what I am referring to takes place on National Forest, and both the USFS and the state of Idaho see the value in having outfitters available to provide reliable service for the public to enjoy public land, we try to preserve the tradition of backcountry use. You take away the outfitter and much of the area I operated in had no use. When I started in the 80's, farmers and ranchers would elk hunt well back from the trail head. Those guys are mostly dead and for the last 15 years I have not seen a single hunter, camp or even heard a rifle shot back there.

GPS coordinates please.

 

[Rie Bread]

I think it’s a conflict of interest when stakeholders drive public policy

 

[SAJ-99]

As a beneficiary, I want my Trustees to always consider the former, and not the latter. I think allowing Trustees to determine deservedness is a recipe for abuse.

The easiest context for me to think about this is a Trust for which I am an elected (ha! ) Trustee - a fire department and district - the Trust serving "The Protection of the District and its Citizens". There are absolutely Stakeholders, some of which are Beneficiaries, who provide more to the Trust than others. One could even argue they "deserve" more Trust Assets than other beneficiaries/stakeholders. But what a mess to discern and defend. When the foundational criteria for deservedness is Beneficiary or Not, it makes the mission of a Trustee more clear and defendable.

I have yet to listen to this episode, but in the context of the Trust/Beneficiary relationship of wildlife management, I do wonder how non-hunters - who are the majority of beneficiaries - fit into the equation, and whether or not we will like the answer.

Good question on non-hunter. If you think of it in terms of a non-huntable species you will quickly spiral down the rabbit hole on this topic. The fact that elk and deer permits have monetary value is what creates the conflict. For example, for legal reasons I believe MT puts a value on a poached mature bull elk of $8000. Ben makes a good point. Wildlife as a condition of the land might be the standard, but what exactly does "condition of the land" mean. If a landowner adds water in Arizona or an alfalfa field with a pivot in Montana, he changes the land and hence the condition of that land and helps the wildlife in the process. By incurring that cost and increasing wildlife, which benefits all beneficiaries, is there no reciprocation for that value? Or by placing the value does that make the landowners position a stakeholder supersedes position as bene? It is hard to justify in MT that paying $25 for an elk tag is appropriate for the chance at a $8000 bull elk. Money complicated everything.

Maybe William Munny in Unforgiven was correct, deserves got nothing to do with it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think it’s a conflict of interest when stakeholders drive public policy

So eliminate the voice of the people?

 

[Rie Bread]

So eliminate the voice of the people?

No im saying the voice of the people is being overshadowed by private interests not in the interests of the beneficiaries

Public policy and resources benefiting the few